Interference No. 103,675
which Dr. Chen had his samples "analyzed" is insufficient because what
was "analyzed" is not adequately established by any of the evidence.
Moreover, rather than analyze the samples Dr. Chen gave to the
analytical group to determine without the benefit of any prior
suggestion of what the compound tested actually was, the analytical
group was merely running NMR analyses on the samples and reviewing the
samples for evidence that Dr. Chen's proposed structure for the
compounds was "consistent" with the NMR spectra. The original,
contemporaneous in time analyses for most of Dr. Chen's samples he
submitted prior to Bouchard et al.'s effective filing date establishes
that the structures of the samples he submitted were "consistent" with
Dr. Chen's original belief that he had prepared mixed fluoro epimeric
derivatives of taxol not cyclopropyl derivatives.
Accordingly, the evidence we have undertaken to review which
would support the allegations made by Chen et al. in their brief, does
not establish to this Board that it was more likely than not that Chen
et al. prepared any compound within any of the counts before December
9, 1992, the effective filing date of Bouchard et al.'s involved
application.
JUDGMENT
Having decided all the issues properly raised before us, it
is now appropriate for us to render final judgment in this
129
Page: Previous 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007